Sanhedrin 56

גוילי בעו מיניה מהו שיעיד אדם באשת חורגו

AND A STEP-FATHER, HE, HIS SON AND SON-IN-LAW. HIS SON! But that is hisbrother!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who has already been mentioned. ');">¹¹</span>

בסורא אמרי בעל כאשתו

— R. Jeremiah said: Thisis only added to indicate [the exclusion of] a brother'sbrother.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the son of his step-father by another wife; though he is not related to him at all, but only through his brother. ');">¹²</span>

בפומבדיתא אמרי אשה כבעלה דאמר רב הונא אמר רב (נחמן) מניין שהאשה כבעלה דכתיב (ויקרא יח, יד) ערות אחי אביך לא תגלה אל אשתו לא תקרב דודתך היא והלא אשת דודו היא מכלל דאשה כבעלה:

R. Hisda declared a brother'sbrother eligible. Said the Rabbis to him: Are you unaware of R. Jeremiah'sdictum? — 'I have not heard it,'he answered, that is to say, 'I do not acceptit.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he holds that one who is related neither by blood nor by marriage, but merely through an intermediary brother, is not excluded. ');">¹³</span>

ובעל אמו הוא ובנו וחתנו: בנו היינו אחיו

If so, [the difficulty remains,] he [i.e., his step-father's son]is HIS BROTHER! — He [the Tanna] enumerates both a paternal and a maternalbrother.

אמר רבי ירמיה לא נצרכא אלא לאחי האח

R. Hisda said: The fathers of the bride and bridegroom may testify for eachother; their inter-relationship is no more than that of a lid to abarrel.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is not fastened thereto, but merely lies upon it. I.e., they have a neighbourly but not an intimate relationship. ');">¹⁴</span>

רב חסדא אכשר באחי האח אמרו ליה לא שמיע לך הא דר' ירמיה אמר להו לא שמיע לי כלומר לא סבירא לי

Rabbah b. Bar Hana said: One may testify for his betrothedwife.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 34 n. 3. ');">¹⁵</span>

אי הכי היינו אחיו תנא אחיו מן האב וקתני אחיו מן האם

Rabina remarked: That is onlywhere his evidence is to herdisadvantage;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to draw away from her.' ');">¹⁶</span>

אמר רב חסדא אבי חתן ואבי כלה מעידין זה ע"ז ולא דמו להדדי אלא כי אכלא לדנא

but if it is to heradvantage, he is not to bebelieved.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though he is not a relation yet, nevertheless, he is not believed, since what is to her advantage will be to his too, when the marriage is completed. ');">¹⁷</span>

אמר רבה בר בר חנה מעיד אדם לאשתו ארוסה אמר רבינא לא אמרן אלא לאפוקי מינה אבל לעיולי לה לא מהימן

But [in reality] thatis not so: it makes no difference whether his evidence is to her advantageor disadvantage; in neither case is he to be believed. [For] on what [doyou base] your opinion [that you do not regard him as a relative]? On R.Hiyya b. Ammi's dictum stated on the authority of 'Ulla, viz.: When the betrothedwife [of a Priest dies], he is not obliged to mourn as anOnen<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' ibut. One deeply grieved. Designation given to a mourner during the time between death and burial, when he is not permitted to eat consecrated things. Cf. Deut. XXVI, 14. ');">¹⁸</span>

ולא היא לא שנא לאפוקי ולא שנא לעיולי לא מהימן

nor may he defilehimself.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to the exegesis of Lev. XXI, 2, a Priest is obliged to defile himself for his wife. Yeb. 22b. Here, however, there is no obligation, and hence he is forbidden too. ');">¹⁹</span>

מאי דעתיך כדאמר ר' חייא בר אמי משמיה דעולא אשתו ארוסה לא אונן ולא מטמא לה וכן היא לא אוננת ולא מטמאה לו מתה אינו יורשה מת הוא גובה כתובתה

Similarly, she is not boundto mourn as an Oneneth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] fem. of [H]. ');">²⁰</span>

התם בשארו תלה רחמנא אכתי לאו שארו היא הכא משום איקרובי דעתא הוא והא איקרבא דעתיה לגבה:

[if he dies]nor to defile herself.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This latter law is only incidentally stated since even a wife by marriage, or even the daughter of a Priest, has no restriction imposed upon her as regards contact with the dead. Cf. Sot. 23b. ');">²¹</span>

חורגו לבדו: ת"ר חורגו לבדו רבי יוסי אומר גיסו ותניא אידך גיסו לבדו ר' יהודה אומר חורגו

If she dies,he does not inherit from her;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whilst a husband inherits from the wife. Cf. B.B. 111b. ');">²²</span>

מאי קאמר אילימא הכי קאמר חורגו לבדו והוא הדין לגיסו ואתא ר' יוסי למימר גיסו לבדו והוא הדין לחורגו אלא מתני' דקתני גיסו הוא ובנו וחתנו מני לא ר' יהודה ולא ר' יוסי

butif he dies, she receives herKethubah!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Provided he has written her one. Hence, since he may not defile himself for her, it proves that there is no real relationship between them. ');">²³</span>

ואלא הכי קאמר חורגו לבדו אבל גיסו הוא ובנו וחתנו ואתא ר' יוסי למימר גיסו לבדו אבל חורגו הוא ובנו וחתנו

But there, the Divinelaw has made it all<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The compulsory defilement and inheritance. ');">²⁴</span>

ואלא הא דתני ר' חייא שמונה אבות שהן עשרים וארבעה כמאן לא כר' יוסי ולא כר' יהודה

depend on thefact that she is 'she'ero' [hiswife],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H]. E.V., 'his kin that is near unto him,' Lev. XXI, 2. ');">²⁵</span>

אלא הכי קאמר חורגו לבדו אבל גיסו הוא ובנו וחתנו ואתא ר' יוסי למימר גיסו לבדו וכ"ש חורגו ומתני' ר' יהודה ברייתא ר' יוסי

a designation which cannotbe applied to a betrothed wife.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The root meaning of [H] is 'flesh relationship,' and hence excludes a betrothed wife. Cf. Mek. on Ex. XXI, 10: [H] means marital duty. ');">²⁶</span>

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כרבי יוסי

Whereas here [the evidence of a relative is inadmissible] because of mentalaffinity; and such mental affinity does exist here [in the case of a betrothedwoman and her groom].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore his evidence might be biassed.' ');">²⁷</span>

ההיא מתנתא דהוי חתימי עלה תרי גיסי סבר רב יוסף לאכשורה דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כר' יוסי

ONE'S STEP-SON HIMSELF. Our Rabbis taught: A step-son himself. R. Jose said:A brother-in-law.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The husband of the wife's sister. ');">²⁸</span>

אמר ליה אביי ממאי דרבי יוסי דמתניתין דמכשר בגיסו דילמא רבי יוסי דברייתא דפסיל בגיסו

Another [Baraitha]has been taught: A brother-in-law himself. R. Judah said: A step-son. Whatdoes this mean? Shall we assume it to mean as follows: A step-son himself,and the same applies to a brother-in-law; whereas R. Jose reversed this:A brother-in-law himself, and the same applies to astep-son?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus differing, not in the application of the law, but in expression. On this hypothesis, the difference lies in which is to be regarded as fundamental and which as derivative. ');">²⁹</span>

לא ס"ד דאמר שמואל כגון אנא ופנחס דהוינן אחי וגיסי אבל גיסי דעלמא שפיר דמי

If so, when our Mishnahstates: A BROTHER-IN-LAW, HIS SON AND SON-IN-LAW, whose view is this? Itis neither R. Judah's nor R.Jose's!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both agreeing that only a brother-in-law himself is excluded. ');">³⁰</span>

ודילמא כגון אנא ופנחס משום דגיסו קאמר

But [again] if this is itsmeaning: A step-son himself; while as for a brother-in-law, [the exclusionextends to] his son and son-in-law; whereas R. Jose reversed this: Abrother-in-law himself; while as for a step-son, [the exclusion extends to]his son and son-in-law too: in that case, what R. Hiyya taught, viz., thatthe Mishnah enumerates eight chief relations which [together with the sonsand sons-in-law] involve twenty-four inall,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 28a. ');">³¹</span>

אמר ליה זיל קניה בעדי מסירה כר' אלעזר

is neither the opinion of R.Judah nor that of R. Jose! — 32 Hence this must be the meaning: A step-sonhimself; but as for a brother-in-law, his son and son-in-law too [are included];whereas R. Jose ruled: A brother-in-law himself, and <i>a fortiori</i> his step-son.The Mishnah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the exclusion of one's brother-in-law is extended to his son and son-in-law. ');">³³</span>

והאמר רבי אבא מודה רבי אלעזר במזויף מתוכו שהוא פסול א"ל זיל לא שבקי לי דאותביניה לך:

therefore agrees withR. Judah; while [the view expressed in] theBaraitha<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That there are eight chief relations, involving twenty-four in all. ');">³⁴</span>

ר' יהודה אומר כו': א"ר תנחום א"ר טבלא אמר ר' ברונא אמר רב הלכה כרבי יהודה רבא אמר ר"נ אין הלכה כרבי יהודה וכן אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן אין הלכה כר' יהודה

is R.Jose's.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who does not extend the exclusion of a brother-in-law to his son and son-in-law too. However, it must not be taken that R. Jose differs from the Mishnah to the extent of admitting a brother-in-law's son, since he has already been excluded by the ruling: 'The husband of his mother's sister,' which, in other words, means that one may not give evidence for or against his sister-in-law's son, with which ruling he is in agreement, since he supports the view in the Baraitha, that there are twenty-four relations in all, and the above-named is included in that number. He differs however from the Mishnah in that he admits the evidence of one's brother or sister-in-law's son-in-law, since the ruling in the Mishnah, 'one's mother's sister's husband', is not irreconcilable with this opinion. The Mishnah excludes only a mother's sister's husband, not a mother-in-law's sister's husband. V. Rashi and Tosaf. a.l. ');">³⁵</span>

איכא דמתני לה להא דרבה בר בר חנה אהא את זו דרש רבי יוסי הגלילי (דברים יז, ט) ובאת אל הכהנים הלוים ואל השופט אשר יהיה בימים ההם וכי תעלה על דעתך שאדם הולך אצל שופט שלא היה בימיו אלא זה שהיה קרוב ונתרחק

Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel; The <i>halachah</i> rests with R.Jose.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Here the reference is assumed to be to R. Jose, in the Mishnah, who excludes only such relations as are eligible to be heirs, which brothers-in-law are not. ');">³⁶</span>

אמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן הלכה כר' יוסי הגלילי

A certain deed of gift had been attested by two brothers-in-law. Now, R.Joseph thought to declare it valid, since Rab Judah said in Samuel's name:The <i>halachah</i> rests with R. Jose. But Abaye said to him: How do we know that[he referred to] the ruling of R. Jose as stated in the Mishnah which permitsthe evidence of a brother-in-law: perhaps he meant the ruling of R. Josein the Baraitha, which disqualifies a brother-in-law? — One cannot thinkso, for Samuel said:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In illustration of a brother-in-law who is disqualified. ');">³⁷</span>

בני חמוה דמר עוקבא

'E.g., I andPhinehas, who are brothers and brothers-in-law (are inadmissible);'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They must have married two sisters. ');">³⁸</span> henceothers who are only brothers-in-law areadmissible.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with R. Jose in the Mishnah. ');">³⁹</span> But [Abaye retorted]may it not be that Samuel, in saying, 'e.g., I and Phinehas,' meant onlyto illustrate the term'brothers-in-law'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And so the fact that they were also brothers was immaterial. Hence brothers-in-law are ineligible as witnesses, so that the deed was invalid. ');">⁴⁰</span> Thereupon [R.Joseph] said to him:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The man who had produced the contract. ');">⁴¹</span> Go and establishyour title through those who witnessed thedelivery,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the deed of gift to you, ');">⁴²</span> in accordance with R.Eleazar.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it is the witnesses who saw the delivery of the document who establish its validity. In fact, according to R. Eleazar, a document unsigned by witnesses is also valid. Cf. Git. 3b. ');">⁴³</span> But did not R. Abba say:Even R. Eleazar agrees that a deed bearing its owndisqualification<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., which is signed by incompetent witnesses. ');">⁴⁴</span> is invalid? —Thereupon R. Joseph said to him: Go your way; they do not permit me to giveyou possession. R. JUDAH SAID etc. R. Tanhum said in the name of R. Tabla in the name ofR. Beruna in Rab's name: The <i>halachah</i> rests with R. Judah. Raba said in R.Nahman's name: The <i>halachah</i> is not in agreement with R. Judah. Rabbah b.Bar Hana said likewise in R. Johanan's name: The <i>halachah</i> does not rest withR. Judah. Some refer this dictum of Rabbah b. Bar Hana to the following:R. Jose the Galilean gave the following exposition: And thou shalt come untothe Priests, the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in thosedays.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XVII, 9. ');">⁴⁵</span> Is it then conceivable that,one could go to a judge who does not exist in his lifetime? But the textrefers to a judge who was formerly a relative but who subsequently ceasedto be one.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., at the time the litigation is brought before him. Such a judge is eligible. ');">⁴⁶</span> [Whereon] Rabba b. BarHana said: The <i>halachah</i> rests with R. Jose the Galilean. The sons of Mar 'Ukba's father-in-law who